SCROLL DOWN FOR ACTION STEPS AUGUST 21, 2023 UPDATE: Are you encouraged to realize the horrible, anti-parent-bill AB 665 has been stuck on the State Senate floor for nearly two months? The next opportunity for the Senate to vote is this Thursday. Which is another big reason for you to squeeze off some strategic, anonymous voicemail messages. See our previous alert below and act now! * * * You’ve heard that AB 665, permitting the anti-family Left to manipulate pre-teens and teens to leave their parents, has passed its Senate policy committee. Now, target the California State Senate floor with new information and strategic action. Please participate with SaveCalifornia.com in weighing down and weakening, and perhaps defeating, AB 665. |
| The bill author, Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo of Los Angeles County (her district includes Glendale, Los Feliz, Echo Park, and East Los Angeles), lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 20 when she claimed AB 665 was really about “homeless youth.” Where is AB 665’s requirement that a minor be “homeless”? This “homeless” condition is NOT in the bill. Another big lie was when Carrillo told committee members, “It is important that we realize that this does not change existing law as to the parental rights of a child.” But that’s not what the Legislative Counsel’s office says. Instead, the Legislative Counsel’s Digest reports the main point of AB 665 is “removing [from current law] the additional requirement that, in order to consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, [the specific condition that] the minor must present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to themselves or to others, or be the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.” AB 665 therefore eliminates existing parental consent before children can be taken away to a “residential shelter” and given drugs (“mental health treatment”). EXISTING LAW IN CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE 6924(b): (b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if both of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. (2) The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse. BUT AB 665 REPLACES THESE WORDS WITH: (b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if the minor, in the opinion of the attending professional person, is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services. By deleting existing law that prohibits taking away children from home unless “The minor (A) would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to self or to others without the mental health treatment or counseling or residential shelter services, or (B) is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse,” AB 665 erases parental consent in this section of Family Code. AB 665 would permit children 12 years and up, who are neither harming themselves nor are victims of abuse, to “consent” to “mental health treatment or counseling services” or to go live at a “residential shelter.” Again, current law requires parental consent, but this bill wipes out parental consent. AB 665 would replace the existing law’s two exceptions by letting children as young as 12 somehow “consent” to “treatment,” “counseling,” and a secret “residential shelter,” without parental involvement, parental consent, or even requiring proof of efforts to notify parents, if a “professional person” (under AB 665, this could be non-experts, such as “a psychological trainee, an associate clinical social worker, a social work intern, a clinical counselor trainee”) simply opines the minor is “mature enough to participate intelligently.” By deleting the current law’s harm or abuse conditions, AB 665 eliminates parental consent prior to children being taken away to live a “residential shelter” to receive “mental health treatment.” |
| And Carrillo’s chief witness lied when she told the Senate Judiciary Committee parents will be notified, saying, “This bill does nothing to make the existing parental notification that’s currently written in the law, so any providers of residential shelter services or of outpatient mental health care are required to go to their best efforts to notify parents that the young person is receiving the treatment.” Yet the text of AB 665 neither requires parental notification nor any consequences for failing to notify parents. Look at all these “holes” in the bill: (c) A professional person offering residential shelter services, whether as an individual or as a representative of an entity specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), shall make their best efforts to notify the parent or guardian of the provision of services. Our analysis: “Best efforts” is not defined. There’s no notification form, or even notification deadline, in AB 665. Parental notification isn’t real in this bill, which eliminates its so-called notification requirement if one believes it’s “inappropriate.” (d) The mental health treatment or counseling of a minor authorized by this section shall include involvement of the minor’s parent or guardian unless the professional person who is treating or counseling the minor, after consulting with the minor, determines that the involvement would be inappropriate. The professional person who is treating or counseling the minor shall state in the client record whether and when the person attempted to contact the minor’s parent or guardian, and whether the attempt to contact was successful or unsuccessful, or the reason why, in the professional person’s opinion, it would be inappropriate to contact the minor’s parent or guardian. Our analysis: Legally, “involvement” of a parent is not requiring parental consent. To ignore parents, a “professional person” merely needs to opine that parental “involvement would be inappropriate” and simply make a note why they didn’t, or why they thought it was “inappropriate” to even try to “contact the minor’s parent or guardian.” Again, parental notification is not required by AB 665. |
| It’s up to concerned Californians to tell the truth about AB 665, which is on the Senate floor and could come up for a vote as soon as Monday, June 26. ACT NOW! Please call 1) your own state senator, and 2) up to 21 “swing-vote” Democrats. HOW TO CALL Call your own state senator (either during business hours or by leaving an after-hours voicemail) and here, identify yourself and where you live. Yet for the 21 “swing-vote” Democrats we’ve identified, leave only brief, anonymous voicemail messages Thursday evening and Friday morning (7pm to 8am) and all this weekend (Saturday and Sunday). WHAT TO SAY Leave your message, saying, “I’m calling to urge you to oppose AB 665. The bill author lied in committee. AB 665 does not require the prior condition of homelessness, yet blatantly eliminates parental consent, doesn’t even require parental notification, and threatens families statewide. Vote NO on AB 665!” LEAVE ANONYMOUS VOICEMAILS (DON’T SAY YOUR NAME OR COMMUNITY) The California State Senate is composed of 40 senators, of which 32 are Democrats. Bills such as AB 665 require 21 votes to pass. Here are the names and numbers of half of the Democrat caucus members to call, listed from in priority from 32 down to below 21: IMPORTANT NOTE: The following list of “swing-vote” Democrats includes 6 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who’ve already voted yes on AB 665. However, they could easily change their votes on the Senate floor, due to new information about how the bill author and bill sponsor deceived them and how AB 665 clearly erases parental rights. 32. Melissa Hurtado (family area, barely “won” reelection, voted NO on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4016 and 661-395-2620 31. Dave Min (in somewhat conservative area, his worsening reputation, abstained on SB 866 and SB 33, is running for more conservative U.S. House seat) 916-651-4037 and 949-223-5472 30. Richard Roth (abstained on SB 866, has abstained on other bills, from somewhat conservative area, termed out in 2024) 916-651-4031 and 951-680-6750 29. Bob Archuleta (family man, abstained on SB 866, has abstained on other bills) 916-651-4030 and 562-406-1001 28. Benjamin Allen (abstained on SB 866 last year, questioned AB 665) 916-651-4024 and 310-318-6994 27. Anna Caballero (family area, has abstained on SB 866 and other bills) 916-651-4014 and 559-264-3070 26. Henry Stern (abstained on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4027 and 818-876-3352 25. Angelique Ashby (new, untested, calls herself a Christian) 916-651-4008 and 916-651-1529 24. Tom Umberg (abstained on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4034 and 714-558-3785 23. Susan Rubio (abstained on SB 866 last year) 916-651-4022 and 909-469-1110 22. Marie Alvarado-Gil (new, from somewhat conservative area) 916-651-4004 and 916-933-8680 21. Catherine Blakespear (new, from somewhat conservative area) 916-651-4038 and 760-642-0809 – – – If AB 665 does not receive 21 yes votes, it will be defeated – – – 20. Monique Limón (abstained on SB 407, initially didn’t support SB 866 916-651-4019 and 805-988-1940 19. Anthony Portantino (abstained on SR 33 pushing “LGBTQ+ Pride Month”) 916-651-4025 | 818-409-0400 18. Aisha Wahab (new, Muslim, misses parents who died when she was a child) 916-651-4410 and 510-794-3900 17. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (new) 916-651-4028 and 213-745-6656 16. María Elena Durazo (wild card) 916-651-4026 and 213-483-9300 15. Lena Gonzalez (wild card) 916-651-4033 and 323-277-4560 14. Steve Glazer (wild card) 916-651-4007 and 925-754-1461 13. Bill Dodd (wild card) 916-651-4003 and 707-224-1990 12. Steve Padilla (an open homosexual, yet represents strongly “pro-family,” largely Hispanic Imperial County) 916-651-4018 and 760-335-3442 |
PA’RENT, noun [Latin parens, from pario, to produce or bring forth. The regular participle of pario is pariens, and parens is the regular participle of pareo, to appear.]
1. A father or mother; he or she that produces young. The duties of parents to their children are to maintain, protect and educate them.
When parents are wanting in authority, children are wanting in duty.
Noah Webster, 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
RSS 2.0 Feed